Pakistan has been under direct or indirect military rule for over 38 years of its 60 years as an independent country. Both the size and nature of the Pakistan Army have a huge impact on the country’s economy and society.

Rising from a relatively small force at independence in 1947, Pakistan today has an army of around 800,000 plus, including over 550,000 regular army and the rest as reserves. It is larger than the regular army of the United States. It increased its force size even after losing half the country in 1971 with the independence of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan).

In the process, Pakistan’s security threat from India grew, forcing it to meet India’s rapid growth of military might; the appearance of the Soviet armed forces in Afghanistan to its west in the 1980s further propelled its expansion.

The army and the armed forces in general remain a key element in Pakistan’s polity. They are well entrenched and powerful and have moved to fill whatever power vacuum or gap that they see. While, unlike the Turkish army, they do not have any constitutional role in the country’s polity, they have crafted a role for themselves and equipped themselves to tackle whatever problems they face, sometimes without an invitation from the government. This has created an inherently unstable system over time.

In essence, Pakistan’s 60-year history reflects a struggle between the coercive power of the army and the civil authority of the state represented by successive governments. As a result, Pakistan’s history is one of conflict between an underdeveloped political system and a well-organised army that grew in numbers and political strength as a counterweight to a hostile India next door and in relation to the domestic political system.

“Whenever there is a breakdown in...stability, as has happened frequently in Pakistan, the military translates its potential into the will to dominate, and we have military intervention followed by military rule,” states former army chief General Jehangir Karamat. “But,” he states, “As far as the track record of the military as rulers in the past is concerned, I am afraid it is not much better than the civilians.”

An examination of the historical record of the Pakistan Army in my new book Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within (Oxford University Press 2008) yields a number of major themes over time:

The Pakistan Army today reflects Pakistani society more than at any time in its history. Increasingly it is going to be based on urban recruitment, especially of its officer corps, and the pool of recruits will come from bigger towns and cities in areas other than its traditional recruitment ground in the Potohar Plateau of northern Punjab.

Internally weak political parties, tied to individual personalities or brought together by temporary and short-sighted common interests, have turned to involve the army in political affairs, only to later lament its active role and taking over of the reins of power.

The army has gradually acquired a corporate structure and identity that appears to trump broader national interests. It tends to act autonomously in foreign dealings, particularly with the Middle East and the United States. Under General Pervez Musharraf it further penetrated the civilian sector and now controls large segments of civil administration. And, it has a wide economic footprint that goes well beyond the welfare needs of its ex-servicemen and women and made the army a part of the broader national Culture of Entitlement that provides preferred and heavily subsidised access to state resources.

Increasingly, the central decision-making on political issues in the Musharraf regime involved the corps commanders and the army chief. The newly instituted National Security Council gives the army and the other armed services a formal role in national policy making that was not envisaged by Pakistan’s founders.

The important role of the army inside Pakistan has been given a boost by the US-Pakistan relationship. The United States has at various times given its strategic and often short-term foreign policy interests precedence over sustaining democracy in Pakistan by aligning with the army as a centre of power. It has been ready to deal with autocrats and dictators at the expense of fostering democracy. The powerful nexus between the US Department of Defence and the Pakistan Army has been a key element of this approach. Yet, whenever the crunch comes, the Pakistan Army acts in its own or national interest rather than bending to the dictates of its US partners.

The army has generally performed well in its primary task of defending the country against external threats but it has failed to gauge the political will of its own people, leading to the loss of half the country in 1971 and to ill-thought out and autonomously executed military adventures in 1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999 (Kargil). Its junior officers and soldiers rank among the best in the world, but its senior leadership has let down the lower echelons in each of its wars.

The army is facing a new operational challenge: fighting wars within Pakistan against shadowy insurgencies, rather than a conventional external force. It will need to retool its systems and thinking if it is to win this long war for the soul of Pakistan against the forces of religious militancy. For an increasingly conservative officer corps and soldiery, this will pose a difficult challenge.

Pakistan Army’s history also shows how it protects its corporate image and structure even against its own leadership when the leadership appears to be threatening the respect and operation of the army as an autonomous entity. It up-ended the Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan dictatorships when public discontent arose against the army. It also failed to follow up on the investigation of the death of General Ziaul Haq and was reluctant to investigate the suspicious death of General Asif Nawaz. Interestingly, when a civilian Prime Minister removed General Jehangir Karamat, the army, under its new chief General Pervez Musharraf took the change in its stride and rallied behind its new leader.

Related to the preceding theme is the selection and composition of the senior leadership of the Pakistan Army. It is a highly personalised system of selection in which the army chief plays a dominant role, and the longer a chief remains in power the more likely he is to promote compliant clones. This deprives the senior military leadership of the useful capacity of argument and debate in making decisions. I suggest a change in the structure of the army’s High Command to make it coup-proof.

Finally, Pakistan remains a key and strategically important country in a troubled region of the world, sitting as it does on the cusp of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Gulf. It also has nuclear arms, whose control and safeguarding remain key to the future stability of the region. For now the army has maintained effective control over the nuclear weapons. A recent Institute of International and Strategic Studies (IISS) report called the system of safeguards “robust”, based on concentric circles of defence. But that has not allayed concerns.

These are the broad themes that emerge from a historical analysis of the Pakistan Army at key junctures in the nation’s history, and they lay the ground for a re-examination of the army’s role in Pakistan’s polity and suggestions for change. The army remains a key player on the political scene and will not easily relinquish its hold on power. Whatever new structure emerges over time will have to take the army’s nature and role into consideration and bring it into the equation while increasing the role of the civil sector. The army’s leadership needs to be a willing participant in this effort to effect a smooth transition. Without such a shift, Pakistan’s search for nationhood and a stable political system may remain an elusive quest.

The good news is that the new military leadership under General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani appears willing to cede decision making to the elected politicians of the land and to return to its professional roots. But changing the expectations and habits of the senior military brass will take time and may well extend to General Kayani’s successor’s term, provided no exogenous shocks destabilise the system, forcing the army to revert to its politically activist ways.

Shuja Nawaz is a political and strategic analyst. His latest book Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within (Oxford University Press 2008) is available on the web and from leading booksellers worldwide. He can be reached at www.shujanawaz.com


Daily Times

Greatest piece of bull #### ever.

He is Asif Nawaz's brother if I am not mistake.

The army's interference into Pakistani politics has been a cancer on Pakistan, that not only broke the country into 2, but has corrupted the country's finances, created inefficiencies in many public services, and prevented us from having solid institutions.

But I am very pleased to see that the latest army leadership has recognized the bullshit of the past, and is focusing on its real duties of defense. Since the army has started respecting the public and taken themselves out of politics, the army's morale and reputation in the public eye has risen up again, compared to being in the gutter under Musharraf.

Also, the other civil institutions of the country are being strengthened in their respective roles.

I'm very optimistic about Pakistan's future

it was bhutto not army who didn't accect 1971 election results in which Mujib-ur-Rehman of bangladesh won..had he accepted bangladesh would still have been part of pakistan...i don't know how it corrupted public finances and has created insfficiency in public services?????

you think Bhutto had the power to single-handedly break the country into two? He had the army's backing. Thats why it happened. The army, which was mostly in Western Pak did not want to take orders from East Pak, and they encouraged Bhutto to reject the election results, and said they'll take care of the rest. But they gravely miscalculated, and we all know what happened next.

So you want to say that it was actually Pakistan Army who told Bhutto to say "Idher Hum, Udher Tum" (We Here,You There). Really that is new to me as well and i am interesting to see the proofs of this connection between Bhutto and Pakistan Army and lastly i checked it was Nawaz Sharif who invited Army to search ghost schools and in WAPDA. Don't tell me that Army told Nawaz, the DEMOCRATIC, to do so.

LOL....so then also blame politicians and not just ARMY.....hahahahhahaha

Bhutto had 83 seats against 167 of Mujeeb.

Bhutto then went onto tell everyone about breaking their legs if they every try to meet Mujeeb.


Nawaz has not issues a 'breaking hands' statement, we'd see how far that goes. But knowing Nawaz, his own clan will shaft him. Isn't shabaz already the party chairman?

How he started?




How a so called democracy ran the system, rigged the elections & jailed the opposition.



Source: U.S. Library of Congress

The army encouraged Bhutto towards that direction. They said "you really want East Pakistanis in control? Stand up against this, we have your back, it will all be taken care of". They wanted control of Army to stay in West Pakistan. Bhutto just saw a chance to be in power, so he embraced this notion
It is FAR more the Army's fault than politicians. It is the politicians job to pursue their agenda, whatever it is, through the political process. If its a good agenda, it will probably happen, if its bad, the system is designed to stop them. There will always be idiot politicians demanding idiotic things. Its because they are humans, and humans are idiots. That is part of democracy. But thats why we have a constitution and a legal system which keeps the bad politicians in check, so nothing bad happens. Look at Canada. There are provincial and federal politicians right now every day trying to break the country into two and make the province of Quebec into another country. They think it will be better then. They are idiots. Quebec cannot survive without Canada, and Canada will be hurt badly if Quebec leaves. It would be a disaster. But pursuing this agenda is perfectly legal. Of course its not going to happen because Canada's institutions such as the judicial branch and the armed forces follow the law. As long as the proper system keeps on working, Canada will never break up because the majority of people do not want that to happen.

Compared to politicians, who are supposed to follow their own political agenda, the army's job is to follow legal orders and protect the country from physical threats like foreign armies. When the army DOESN'T do THEIR job and instead disobeys orders or follows illegal orders, THATS when you have disasters because the SYSTEM breaks down. They are no longer doing their job. The army can't obey an order like "kill all Pakistanis who have blue eyes" even if the democratically elected leader gives that order, because its an illegal order. Just like that, encouraging Bhutto, and then unrecognizing the majority victory in East Pakistan by force was illegal. The army stopped doing their job, the system broke down, and the result: disaster.

Many people wish they had a Ferrari but they cant afford it. It is their right to go around and asking people for one, or trying to convince people to give them one. Its not going to happen! But they are free to try. They are like politicians. But then if a policeman comes up and claims "I found this Ferrari F50, it belongs to some bad guy who will be arrested soon, you want it? Just keep telling people that the previous owner was a bad guy." The policeman is like the army. Faced with this opportunity, a person might think "policeman probably knows what he's doing, and I get a free Ferrari! Sure!" It turns out the Ferrari's owner did nothing wrong, the policeman just didn't like him. So whose really to blame for the problem? The person who wants a Ferrari, or the policeman who did something illegal and completely did the opposite of his job?

Yes its true, that if the person was of good moral caliber, he would not accept the policeman's offer. But the policeman would just go to the next person and offer. He will eventually find someone who is selfish for sure. On the other hand, nothing bad could have happened without the policeman's violation of the law. I agree that any politician who did not recognize the true results of the election is scum. But immorality is not the same as illegal. Bhutto's lust for power is nothing compared to the army's outright violation of the rights of Pakistani voters. As long as the system is maintained, no harm can be caused by fantasy or lust, which is human nature.

If the army sticks to its job, and stays out of politics, Insh'Allah Pakistan will see progress unmatched in the world.

yea...thats why whenever civilian govt' came our economy colapsed...just as it is colapsing now....

Was bhutto a 2 year old that he didn't know the cosequences of not accepting election result....thats BULLSHIT....

Army should stick to its job and must not interfere in politics...but our politicians are masahallah....

The army did no such thing londo. Yayha tried his hardest for peace. He even said that Mujeeb will be PM. Instead Mujeeb sent his thugs and they took over the eastern wings and started pogroms against west Pakistanis and moderate Bengalis. Yayha met Mujeeb on March 24th (day before operation was launched) and BEGGED him to stop his shenagins. He said that Mujeeb could have whatever he wanted. Mujeeb refused.


The blame for '71 lies on the Bengali non muslims. Of course Pakistan-haters like you don't care about that do you.

c'mon sparten....don't atleast run from truth...why on the first place situation deterioted???you can't blame bangalis for that..

Another Pakistan hater!
The situation was detrioating from the day after elections. Bengali non muslims and their nationalist poison is what broke up Pakistan. Whats this nonsence about "not wanting a Bengali leader"? We had three Bengali PMs before that. And all three of them carried out an operation in the Punjab which killed thousands but restored state writ. Incidentally, I support that action. If a rebellion occurs, whenever, wherever, however, then it should be crushed with as little thought as is given when stepping on an ant.

3 bengali PMs...wow...i didn't know that...can you give the names if they ever existed??
accept it that bangalis did have sense of deprivation...and the refusal of bhutto to accept election result just gave it a final push...

What a surprise you don't know it. I bet the only history of Pakistan you Pakistan hater know is what propaganda, MQM, PPP, PML or someother vested interests regurgitates at you.


Here they are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Nazimuddin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Bogra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huseyn_Shaheed_Suhrawardy

The cause of the breakup was Bengali munafiqat and treason. The resposibility lies with them.

LOL...
i did read about them in school life..but didn't knew they were from east pakistan..

those nation never move forward who don't learn from there mistakes..accept that they did have sense of deprivation...thats why they broke away...west pak was developing fast from the money earned from export of jute from east pakistan, while east pak suffered...national language issues were there,seats in NA was another bone of contension....

If you think the economy is in trouble because of THIS civilian government, you are in for a surprise. They have only been here for 2 months. Everything that is happening is because of the decisions made in the last 9 years by a corrupt dictatorship. Or rather, the lack of decisions. Virtually zero progress or building of country's infrastructure. Pure loot maarr. When did the wheat export problem begin? With the new government or the old dictatorship? When did the massive load-shedding begin? With the new government or the old dictatorship? The answer is obvious.

But Insh'Allah the new government will be able to fix this disaster which the last dictatorship created. Especially with a coalition government, when everyone is watching each other, it is even better than a regular civilian majority government.


wow.... -_-

How about we continue our discussion after you wake up from this dream world of yours

I'll wake up from "this dream world of mine" after you have acrually read unbiased sources. For example Brain Cloughley's History of Pak army.

Its the timely interference of Pak army that has saved Pakistan on many occassions. Its the civilian govs who aren't delivering, Pak army has delivered whatever was asked of it from Nukes to planes etc. Gwadar is another example of PAk army success. the project was totally managed and 100% successful and is now an envy of the world. Pak army is respected in the world with its first class training and professional soldiers. Our politicians are a laughing stock of the world and our country.

Mushy doesn't have billions in swiss accounts or luxury mansions built on stolen money. Mushy has been excellent in his conduct and his integrity is intact, unlike most of our politicians. His problem has been his attempt to enforce change on a deeply engraved corrupt system. The ones who have been screaming the most are the ones who wish to steal the success Mushy and his team have built.

I sincerely hope you all get your wish and the army does not interfere again. I would absolutely love to see Pakistan run by Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif without any intervention from anyone for 20-30 years. Then when you are looking to Africans for aid we shall see whether the army was the cancer or not.

The army only intervened because the politicans have failed to create a civil service. Every single political party which comes in brings in tier own police chiefs etc... which means that all police officers, civil servants, judges bend to the demands of politicans creating the environment in whicht hey can get away with anything hence breaking the country forming the army to intervene.

create an inddependent civil servic.e

"Then when you are looking to Africans for aid we shall see whether the army was the cancer or not. "


Perhaps we should let PA run the civil service for a few years and see if it transforms from a third rate third world entity to a one fit for a developed nation?

A few years won't do... you need a system where the civil service is independent of politics all together. Politicians can come and go, the ministers can change, the secretaries and experts in the offices they run should remain the same and the HR resource for that should be managed free of politics.

Police officers and judges cannot be instated/removed by politicians or presidents, they need to have their own system of HR and hiring and firing and bonuses etc.

Definitely independance of the institutions is very important. Corruption cannot be allowed in any government. But army has absolutely ZERO business in running the country.

The current government is made up of parties that have demonstrated corrupt elements in the past. However its possible that since its a coalition, they will both keep an eye on each other, and force each other to be on good behaviour, or risk losing the upper hand. Time will tell. But either way, no matter what happens, if a civilian government is bad, at least you can get rid of them. That is the proper way to have a government.

The problem with army rule is, once they come, you need divine intervention to get rid of them. They have too much power and are not accountable to anyone. When they start doing bad things, nobody can stop them. That is the danger of dictatorship. 10 more years under Musharraf would have made Pakistan into Burma or Iraq under Saddam. Already his government was more corrupt than any civilian government in Pakistan's history.

Thank god the public and civil societies struggled for change. And they must continue until we have a good solid independant system.

Don't know bro...history has shown that modern Europe was based on forms of military-dynastic dictatorships of the Imperial Era.

I mean...wasn't even Prophet Muhammad and the first 4 Caliphs and many after them also Generals? I think in the bigger scheme of things it should not matter whether a general or scholar or theologian or school teacher runs a country, so long as they are the ones most qualified and deserving. The politics of governance should end and be absorbed into apolitical state focused on merit and technocracy...with an elected 'parliament' to protect the constitution; a fully autonomous judiciary and a stronger more automated/technocratic governing body.

Ummm when Europe had dictatorships (kingdoms, monarchies, generals), people ran away in droves to America. Yes the European countries were very strong internationally, in terms of military and wealth, BUT the life of the average citizen was hell, while the kings swam in riches. Thats why they all left for America.

When Europe tried to bring America back into the fold, they kicked Europe's ass in the revolution, and only after that Europe saw the superiority of the American system, got its act together and turned to civilian rule, and today they are even more democratic than America.

Look at Europe and the stability they enjoy now. Its all because none of their military can even THINK of removing the civilian government by force and taking control. There are still corrupt politicians and scandals every day, but that doesn't imply a failure of democracy! As soon as they are identified, they get ostracized in the media and removed. That is how a good system works. Regularly flush out the garbage. With military in control, public cannot kick anyone out, and generals in the military can be just as corrupt as politicans. To think otherwise is to live in a dreamland and ignore the history of Pakistan.

First of all, it would be naive to compare today's army generals to the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) who was working under direct guidance of Allah, and the Caliph's who were the very best companions that the prophet handpicked himself. Another thing is that back then the Muslim nation was constantly at war, surrounded by a world that considered them and their religion's very existence unacceptable. But in a world where countries are internationally recognized and governments have free and full jurisdiction inside their own borders, it makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to have the military involved with running the country. If Pakistan was being invaded, I would totally understand if the army declared martial law and took over. But that cannot be the norm.

Military has absolutely no interest in getting the country out of poverty, or developing the infrastructure for the public, or making wise economic choices for the future. The military's priorities, as shown by Pakistan's history, has always been to make sure the size of the military increases and to slam down anyone who questions their decisions. That is not their fault. They are the military. Thats how they are trained to think, its what they are good at. They follow orders. Disobeying orders is punishable. And you do whatever it takes to make the military stronger. This way of thinking is perfect for defence. But its a disaster for running a country.

The proper way forward for a country like Pakistan, is to rise out of poverty with a strong economy. Since we don't have oil, we have to develop and rely on our other strengths like technological know-how, manufacturing, shipping and agriculture. That requires spending money right now on development of public infrastructure, not the military. Improving relations with neighbours can reduce the risk of conflict, so we only have to maintain a minimum deterrance. THEN ONCE Pakistan's economy is a serious global player, and the public's standard of living is much higher, then we can spend all we want on the military. Even a small % of GDP will buy lots of nice toys. Just like the Europeans are playing now. They can do that because they are rich. We are NOT. So spending what little money we have right now on the military only serves to hurt development and it keeps Pakistan and its people poor.

You only need to look at the world today, look at the most efficient, propserous and free societies and see the role of the civilian governments and the military.

There is no 'in stone' law that forbids a military ruler from ruling a country...this whole civilian business has been quite recent for Europeans and has little overall basis in Pakistan. For God's sake everyone is a bloody human being with varying levels of skill, loyalty and energy...you cannot single out military rulers just because a man-made constitution forbids them from running a country. What Europe is today would never have been possible without their Imperial rulers nor their enslaved colonies...the wealth that transferred from Africa & Asia into Europe is exactly what modern Europe is built on. The U.S., Canada and Australia are not that different either...heard of the Aboriginal Natives? You will have to find me a true universal standard that forbids a General from running a country...some Anglo Saxon law isn't going to cut it.

Find out how Europe became rich...it started with a good sea-trade which evolved into coastal control to the total control of a foreign nation's resources, people and even social structure. As a continent Europe became an uncontested power and simply duked itself out - WW1, WW2 & Cold War - to its current form. Slavery, racism and extortion are not democratic and are human rights abuses - Europe & U.S. has been doing it right up to the 1970s-1980s. Who put Europe through the industrial revolution? Who got Europe its natural resources? What made Europe an uncontested power? Imperial military factors have been centre...same applies to U.S., Japan, Australia and now moving towards China.

Fact is the law the Prophet and the Caliphs were following never forbade them from running their state...neither should that law forbid Generals today.

As for Pakistan...it can do well if it had a defined foreign policy; merged military spending with industrial build-up....shipbuilding, aerospace, aeronautics, vehicle production, etc. Focus on extracting natural resources and processing them all under state control - build up a National Treasury. Bring enough agriculture and energy production under control for domestic use, put them on the local market at ease prices and build up the Treasury through all Pakistani people. Establish state-owned Sea-Merchant firms for land locked Central Asian states...give them 'home port' access and employ Pakistanis to transport the goods from Karachi/Gwadar to the CAS. Exploit comparative advantage in agriculture and textiles...adopt Import Substitution Industrialization for manufactured goods used by a good segment of the Pakistani population and for export to Africa. Build markets to trade with in Afghanistan and Africa through Fair Trade programs...our NESPAK building their roads for their gold, etc, etc. The relatively high defence budget is not as much of an issue as it seems...

Through more state controlled practises, Pakistan can promote private corporate culture by contracting able folk to produce the refineries, plants, etc, under state control. Make each enterprise a profit driven corporation...end income tax and replace it with people purchasing state goods...tell investors like Nestle to buy from state stocks....etc, etc. Build up the treasury and buy production machines, yet keep agriculture healthy and stronger in relative terms because the world will always require food and clothing. It is all management and good thinking that will take Pakistan forward...this "cut this, spend on that" isn't going to go anywhere.

And what makes you think a military government can do this better than a civilian government? Is the military somehow filled with saints?

If everyone is human, and nobody is perfect, then why choose military rule? Once they come, its almost impossible to replace them after they make mistakes and become unpopular. Its always a painful process and people die. But with civilian governments, its easy to replace them, with elections.

Military rulers have military training, and that does not qualify them to run a country. Politicans on the other hand usually have business or economic or law experience, and thus are far better suited. When has Pakistan seen the most development in its 60 years? Under the military? or under civilian rule? That says it all.

You can also take a look at the military dictatorships around the world to see how much those countries prosper. Other than China, there is no-one. Whereas every other flourishing or progressing nation is a civilian democracy where the military sticks to what its trained for: Defence. Not Politics.

Well at least the group of leading generals are better educated, more patriotic and progressed through merit - compared to what's sitting in power today. I choose military rule because at least that institution has an automated apolitical meritocratic progression system that demands loyalty and love for one's country. Not many people put their lives in stake because of the money...actually the officers in the military get paid peanuts compared to their civilian equals (in education). The reason why the military rule in Pakistan failed is because it always tried to become the political force when it should have been a state force...as a state force it could do whatever it wanted and rule with an illegitimate iron fist. However as seen under Musharraf and those before him, it always choose to keep the parliament and try to gain unnecessary and pointless legitimacy - that is why it didn't do as well. Pakistan never had uncontested one party rule like China, South Korea, Japan, Singapore or Malaysia.

Stop taking governance as a political issue...it does not have to be! Governance is a technical issue that requires analysis, process and implementation - not unnecessary argument based on agenda. Apoliticise governance and turn parliament into a protector of the constitution and speaker of the people's law...leave the government to do what it wants to do within the law.

Military rulers have military training as only an aspect of their overall education...they are educated. I know Army officers with BBAs and a couple with BAs - all legitimate with 3-4+ years of studying and examinations. Where does Zardari stand, where is his degree from? What's his occupation other than politics...wait it's politics? How do you become a billionaire on just politics? As of today there are JAG officers in the military with Juris Doctor, LLM and one with LLD from the international universities WITH international creditation to practise law! How many civilian lawyers have that? Realize it is very difficult to go for an international degree within the Pakistani military, one has to be that good to have that benefit.

It was under military rule that Pakistan magically experienced economic growth; in the 1960s it was a shipbuilder and an emerging petrochemical producer; it had exploding growth in the knowledge sector - especially economics and finance. In the 1980s the same stuff was beginning to take root again, and then again from 1999 to 2008 - and now may decline. It was in the 1960s during Ayub Khan's era that a nuclear project was given its first breath of life before Z.A Bhutto officialized and publicized the project. It was in the 1960s when we were talking to Saab and Dassault for possible license production of their latest designs.

It was under military or pure dicatorship that most contemporary industrial powers became what they are today! The 17th-20th century was filled with undemocratic rule in Western Europe...was France a backwards failed state when it was in Algeria? No. Was Germany a loser country with nothing at the on-set of WW1 & WW2? No. Was Britain a beautiful non-partisan liberal democracy during its hayday? No.

In my opinion those are romantic idealistic notions that are completely unrealistic and non-existant. Every military general who has siezed power in Pakistan has proven to be as corrupt as the civilian government it replaced. And unlike the civilian governments, there is no way to replace them, which prolongs the country's suffering. I am not willing to risk Pakistan's health and future on the misguided notion that Generals do not become corrupt and put their own needs ahead of the country as soon as they come to power. There is absolutely no basis for it, and the history of hundreds of governments around the world, including Pakistan, have proven the contrary.

Economic investments take a 5-10s years to blossom into visible benefits for a country. The fact that every time a military dictator comes, there is a short-lived period of prosperity, that starts to fade in 5 years of their being in power just proves how much more productive the civilian governments before them were, and in what terrible shape the military leaves the country after their rule. It is economically impossible for Musharraf to have brought any prosperity to Pakistan within his first 5 years (2000-2005). If there were any advances in that time, they were all because of projects that Nawaz Sharif had initiated before being removed. And the disaster the country is in now, which started MORE than a year ago, is the product of 8 years of neglect under Musharraf. Now this government will spend the next 5 years fixing all the mistakes, and then the next government will take credit when those investments blossom.

Look at America. Under Bush's first 4 years, the country's economy boomed. But in the last 4 years, it has started to tank, because he has completely neglected the country's real needs. America's next leader will be forced to preside over 4 years of recession. Only people who do not understand economics would dare blame the next leader.

There's no way to replace a military general? Bro that has been done at least twice by the power of civilians, now I ask you how easy it is to end the tyranny of the likes of Zardari, Bhutto, Sharif...do you want more suicide bombers or bloody revolutions to put an end to this? BTW that is what the French, Russians and Cubans went through. As of today the Generals are generally more qualified to run a state than the bunch of baboons sitting in power today...bar a few notable individuals, the majority of the civilians have been an upset. People as clean as Asghar Khan who are now civilians have no shot in power because civil institutions are structured. How many civilian rulers have gone on the frontlines in this careers? How many have them even have a concern for Pakistan?

About Nawaz Sharif's projects, you will need to be specific.

The issue has mostly been a clash between military rule bogged down by unnecessary politics and civilian elitism. When there are no decisive and pro-nation policies nor capital investments, every leadership will fail...civilian or military.

I can't believe you said that. The only way dictators (anywhere in the world) are removed is by being killed or losing a war or when the people reach such a breaking point that they are willing to rise up and fight against the army. Only events which are so incredibly unstable for a country can remove a dictator. The proper way to change leaders are elections. Look at nawaz and bhutto... how easy it was to replace them... they never even lasted 5 years, the full length of their terms.

This has nothing to do with indecision or elitism. This has everything to do with basic rights. The people of Pakistan have a right to choose who their leaders are. The system of civilian governments is designed specifically to meet these needs, and systems are in place to remove bad leaders and limit their powers. But military rule on the other hand strips Pakistanis of this fundamental right. That is unacceptable.

Hello...so you admit generals can be ousted; but specifically in Pakistan they have gone down through public opinion. You can have as many elections as you want, but the end result will always be a Bhutto or a Sharif - unless of course societal fundamentals are changed. Those societal fundamentals - as proven in history - require very authoritarian, totalitarian and simply nasty actions, which Pakistan never experienced. Terms are completely meaningless when power is balanced through brokerage and behind closed doors - which is defacto in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Okay they have a right to choose their leaders, no doubt. Now let me ask you, do you know how most of our leaders have come into power lately? Idiots can buy their votes through a single meal or pure oppression - yes civilian leaders BTW - and get their 'votes'. Do you know who runs the PPP? Definitely not democrats, but rather totalitarian feudal lords. Do you know the Pakistani feudal system? It isn't pretty...in fact some where will give you direct first hand knowledge of the system - including myself. The same applies to the PML-N and PML-Q...tightly organized mobs/mafia groups run by feudal lords. Now if they cannot get honest votes, how on earth are the people making a decision?

Pakistan's political power is concentrated among the feudal lords, tribal folk and corporate technocrats...there is no democracy when you have these elites.

No, in 99.99% of ALL military rule situations in the world they have gone down in a bloody assassination or war or revolution. That is NOT a civilized or stable way to change and improve leadership. Its a universal phenomenon, regardless of in Pakistan or outside. The founding fathers constituted Pakistan to be a democracy. And they were wise because civilian rule has proven to be the best method of government worldwide.

Then fix that problem, instead of blaming the system. And that is exactly what this whole judicial struggle in the country is all about. To stop feudal lords and others from oppressing the population, while the police is helpless and corrupt. But just because we haven't been running a civilian government properly doesn't mean we should turn to a military government, which is far worse, and proven to be bad every time.

At least with civilian rule, the people can choose who they want. Just look at the elections in 2008, they are proof that Pakistan CAN hold free and fair elections where people vote for who they want. And that only happened thanks to Musharraf resigning from the military and the new commander stepping out of politics. As opposed to 2002 elections which were completely rigged because the army under Musharraf supported his candidates, as well as the feudal lords and extremists in the PML-Q and MMA. Make no mistake, whenever nawaz sharif or bhutto has come to power in the past, it has been WITH THE ARMY'S SUPPORT, and them rigging the elections. The army in Pakistan is so strong that no political party has the BALLS to use their own thugs to try to muscle votes or rig elections without the army's "go-ahead". So the biggest thing is keeping the army neutral and out of politics. Then everyone else also behaves.

In 2008 a lot of the smaller parties boycotted. But in the future, if army continues to behave, those parties will also participate, elections will result in even more small parties and independents gaining power, and the traditional big "mafia" parties as you say will not have it so easy.

Right, so 99.9% of the strongest democracies started off as the worst of imperial dictatorships that slaughtered, enslaved and looted foreign lands. That is obviously not civilized, but that is the basis of the democracy they practise today. The founding fathers in Pakistan wanted above all else the protection of the common man and an evolution of governance within Pakistan to meet the needs of the commoner. Mistakes were made during the creation of Pakistan which helped attract bad elements such as power to the feudals through the Sikander Pact; very early inability to form a clear foreign policy; partisan politics by screwing the communists;, etc. Dude the founding fathers wanted many things, but very early - before Ayub Khan became ruler - things were not running according to those principles.

Any government that transforms the judicial institution into an exclusive non partisan organization will take Pakistan forward...you don't need to be a civilian, officer or cleric to do that - but simply a leader with a clear purpose. As we speak people are drawing up the plans to finally separate the judiciary, police and civilian security & intelligence from the political process; there will be a day Insh'Allah that judges & police chiefs will not be handpicked but selected by the Courts on merit and for a clear purpose.

I'll agree there.

Let's hope.

I did not say 99.99% of all democracies started out as the worst imperial dictatorships. I said that 99.99% of countries who have a dictatorship can only remove their leaders through a bloody process, instead of peaceful votes.

I admit you are right, most of the European powers that are flourishing democracies now were once non-democratic kingdoms. But there was no proven record of democracy back then. The concept was blurry itself. It took a while to be developed, just as all ideas and technologies are developed and perfected by humans over time.

But if you look outside of Europe, you find the biggest proof of what I was saying. America became the first proper modern democracy, and this was when they were a relatively WEAK force in the world, Europe was much stronger. As a result of civilian rule, they soon defeated Britain and became a major world power. It was because their people wanted to work hard and fight. They felt they were in control of their destiny. Unlike non-democratic rule, where the people work and fight because they have orders to do so. Some more examples of democracies who were not imperial dictatorships are Switzerland, Iceland, Singapore, and Canada. They built their countries to what they are today under democracy. Even India to a lesser extent is an example of a stable democracy whose lifestyle has improved tremendously under democracy.

and it I'm just saying the founders envisioned civilian rule... thats what Pakistani's signed up for when the country was created... so by default army rule should be a repulsive concept to the very existence of Pakistan.